by being the exclusive means to distribute apps, they are imposing their will on what can be developed. By being the exclusive point of distribution, they have an obligation to allow more content in apps than any other media they sell. You can buy digital music elsewhere, you can buy digital movies elsewhere, you can buy digital books elsewhere. You can't buy (or even download for free) iApps anywhere else.

Then move on to another platform that will allow what you want. When Apple loses enough customers, they will change the way they do business.

They already have stuff like the Playboy app and the FHM app on the store (which wasn't part of Apple's recent app purge; they only removed apps from small developers who couldn't fight Apple, leaving the big "established" brands still on the store). All this is doing is funneling those apps into its own category (a restricted category, I assume). This should be a win-win for everybody. People who want those apps can have them. People who don't want those apps can get them out of other categories (the Playboy app is currently #17 on the Paid App Entertainment category list and FHM is #22 on the Paid App Lifestyle list; if we had this category, parents wouldn't have to worry about that anymore).

Also, nothing on the App Store is actually porn. As far as I know, no nudity or sexual acts have ever been found on the App Store (unless, I suppose, it was approved by accident). Even the Playboy app (Playboy already tame by internet-porn standards; not sure why anybody interested in porn would want the app to begin with) is completely nudity-free according to the customer reviews on its App Store page.

So you think that your personal choice overrides the corporate choice of the company running the store to sell what they feel like selling?

What I meant by the Starbucks thing was, you cannot tell a store owner what to sell. You can, however, find a store that sells what you want to buy and then go ahead and buy it there. If the first guy doesn't have what you want, you move on to who does.

And that is why Apple is going to start a pornography business. To give the customers what they want to buy.

Believe it or not, but pornography is a huge mainstream business, and huge numbers of folks enjoy it.

Too many people don't understand what censorship means. They only have the power of not being fully open, as you said. Apple doesn't have the power for censorship. For it to be censorship, they would have to get the entire country to ban mature content. Only the government holds that power.

Read a dictionary. You yourself have the power to censor, and you utilize it all day, every day.

Then move on to another platform that will allow what you want. When Apple loses enough customers, they will change the way they do business.

Perhaps apple is doing exactly what you just said - changing the way they do business to account for what the competition is doing (i.e. the android marketplace)?

It's an odd situation when nobody bats an eye that the itunes store has explicit lyrics in music, has nudity and sex in movies, has explicit content in audiobooks, all of which are media you can buy elsewhere, but then some get bent out of shape if apple decides to allow explicit content in apps.

By it's very nature, the most used iApp, Safari, has access to pervasive nudity and porn. Yet the playboy app in the app store can't have nudity? Isn't that what people expect if they buy playboy? What is so wrong with allowing that as long the proper parental controls are in place?

Wow! It looks like Apple is welcoming back the perverts with open arms and other open orifices. I was really getting a kick out of all those gripers that were so upset about Apple taking away their porn or soft-port apps. It's amazing how people get riled up over such silly stuff. Those that said Apple was like Communist China must be rather regretful now.

Oh, good. I thought it was likening me to a resident troll here. I don't see how any of my comments are similar to his, though. I don't mind have a different opinion, but I do not like being lumped in with the uninformed or arrogant resident trolls lingering around here.

Here is a definition of censorship, as I did read a dictionary definition or two prior to posting my comments:

You see, the parts in that definition, correct? And if you re-read my comments, you'll see that they do make sense. Or probably not, because you obviously feel your opinions are more valuable than mine.

They already have changed the way they do business. That is kind of the whole point of the article you are commenting on...

That was the whole point of my collective comments. If Apple feels like they want to make that money, they will sell it. It is completely up to them what to sell, what not to sell, and to whom. How did you read anything else from my comments?

Look up the word in the dictionary, and then ask yourself if "get it elsewhere" means that it is "not censorship".

If you need help with this, let me know.

I don't need help with it, and honestly, your condescending tone isn't warranted. Just because I have a different opinion you think your stance is superior?

Where in your mind does it make any sense whatsoever that a company is obligated to sell something?
If they don't provide what their customers are looking for, they will lose business. If they do this enough, they will go out of business or change their model.

What if a general interest magazine app is approved for the iPad, and then, sometime in the future, the app publishes sexually explicit images, like stills from a sex tape (like Gawker) or something Euro-sexual ... not "pornography" like Hustler or other hardcore stuff, but still pretty raunchy?

Is Apple going to police the editorial policies of magazine and newspaper publishers? Will it withdraw permission to operate on the iPad if the magazine runs afoul of Apple's morals?

I think you did not even read my post with this response. I understand as I said previously that any retailer can sell whatever they want and not sell whatever they want. The term censorship is somewhat correct. You can look this up if you want but this is a form of corporate censorship.

Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light.

We can continue to argue our points on this round and round. But I think we both agree that Apple or any retailer has the right to sell what they want or not. I was never contending that. Where we differ is I feel Apple should allow explicit adult content (with age approval) and you do not. Please correct this if I am wrong. I do not like putting words in peoples mouths.

This is correct, but contradictory. If they can sell nor not sell as they choose, how can they not be considered censors when they don't sell everything? Also, I never said I do not think they should or should not sell anything. All I said was it is their choice in what to/not to offer for sale.

My bad on the 'corporate censorship' thing. Looking it up, I now see I was incorrect with my definition. Thanks.

This puts me in a rather odd position, though, because, like you I don't like censorship at all, but still feel like as a business you can definitely choose what to put on your shelves, be it a virtual store or a brick and mortar store.

I stand by them categorically refusing to sell explicit content. It's their choice. If they decided to sell the explicit content with certain things omitted, I would change my mind. Having no access at all, to me, is better than giving partial, half-baked solutions. The problem with them allowing any sales of explicit "visual" content is, where do you draw the line? You'd have to allow romance novels along side videos of Two Girls One Cup? It presents its own set of problems, which, according to this article they seem to have it figured out.

I am against censorship. But I do not fail to realize that Apple has the right to sell what they want.

I too, am against censorship. However, one single company deciding to not sell a single genre type of product, i.e., porn, is not censorship. The government stepping in and saying that nobody at all is allowed to sell porn, is censorship. Therefore Apple or any other company deciding not to make porn available through their outlets doesn't mean they are guilty of censorship.

I don't need help with it, and honestly, your condescending tone isn't warranted. Just because I have a different opinion you think your stance is superior?

Where in your mind does it make any sense whatsoever that a company is obligated to sell something?
If they don't provide what their customers are looking for, they will lose business. If they do this enough, they will go out of business or change their model.

This could be a fantastic step in the right direction. Apple ought to:

1- open up a uncensored section of content, stop censorship
2- open up the Iphone, Itouch to allow for independently sold App's/Software which is sold outside of itunes. Why should apple be the only place to get software, it ought to be like my mac. i can install stuff i got elsewher. itunes ought to be able to install outside software on the iphone.

I have a certain sympathy with Apple here, because they are in a no-win situation. Whatever their approach a vocal minority will take offence, so they will have to try to tiptoe down some sort of middle path. This problem is only going to get worse when iBooks comes online. How on earth do they decide what literature is 'too sexually explicit'? At what point does art end and pornography begin? It is a wholly subjective view with no simplistic cut-and-dried boundary. Is the Kama Sutra acceptable? What about "Lady Chatterley's Lover"? Expect much frothing at the mouth and sanctimonious pontificating from here on in... for ever.

Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.Buddha

I too, am against censorship. However, one single company deciding to not sell a single genre type of product, i.e., porn, is not censorship. The government stepping in and saying that nobody at all is allowed to sell porn, is censorship. Therefore Apple or any other company deciding not to make porn available through their outlets doesn't mean they are guilty of censorship.

Concepts of decency are different in different places. Americans, and I am one, have to realize that much of what is thought of as shocking in the USA is considered normal and healthy in Europe, remember they threw out the Puritans we embraced at Plymouth Rock . So Apple have to have a system to cater for a wider audience than the bible belt. So IMHO they are correct to simply adopt a recognized system for separating the content by a similar system as movies do. How can people complain if they are forewarned about content?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

the new lil wayne cd has lyrics that would make larry flint blush. yet I can download and listen to the entire offensive album if I choose too from itunes. (I choose not too) Who is it to decide that the words in his lyrics are more or less offensive than anything that playboy would put in an app?

Any browser you use can take you to the nastiest stuff you've ever seen if you know what to search for. if you don't want to see it, it's pretty easy to stay away. the fact that you are using a smut distribution tool to post your comment against smut distribution is hilarious... don't think that your browser was written with distributing smut in mind? go to: tools - start private browsing and experience a feature built specifically in every modern browser so that you can find all that nasty stuff on the net and your wife won't be able to see what you are looking at.

Oh, good. I thought it was likening me to a resident troll here. I don't see how any of my comments are similar to his, though. I don't mind have a different opinion, but I do not like being lumped in with the uninformed or arrogant resident trolls lingering around here.

Here is a definition of censorship, as I did read a dictionary definition or two prior to posting my comments:

You see, the parts in that definition, correct? And if you re-read my comments, you'll see that they do make sense. Or probably not, because you obviously feel your opinions are more valuable than mine.

That is a perfectly fine definition,. but it is not the only correct definition. If that was the only one in your dictionary, you might want to look at a more inclusive dictionary.